"America's
president is omnipresent on TV screens around the world, but as the leading
power, his country has abdicated. … Woe betide the
world if President Obama continues to make this the guiding principle of his
policies."
On Wednesday we celebrate a
birthday. That day will mark one year of Obama. Back then, on January 20, 2009,
it was a dazzling celebration. At last all men were brothers (a couple of
diehard doubters couldn't spoil our joy). So we spent the first half of the
year proud of the fact that we had chased away the demon Bush. Since then, we've
been determined to make the world a better place. But the diehards - and
unfortunately more and more people who are only half-convinced - demand that we
move from words to deeds.
But did someone annoy God on the evening of the first day of creation because he still hadn't installed any recycling bins? [i.e.: Is it too soon to fret over Obama?]
In reality, the world in the
year 1 A.O. [AO=After Obama] has changed more than it may appear. The U.S. has
vanished - a sacrificial victim to the political climate change.
America's president is omnipresent
on TV screens around the world, but as the leading power, his country has
abdicated. It no longer wants to be the world's policeman. In place of the unipolar world, we have the free play of second-rank powers.
China, Europe and Russia are too weak and too self-centered to take the lead. But
neither do they want to responsibly integrate themselves into a cozy world-share
that lacks house rules [world-share is like home-share]. Who's going to take
out the garbage, who'll stock the fridge, and who'll hit the burglar over the
head when the patio door is broken open at three in the morning?
PART 2: WORLD PEACE LONG OVERDUE
Multilaterally-negotiated
world peace has been a long time coming. Obama has made submissions to Russia
and Iran, but nowhere has he managed to obtain a new start.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Instead, everyone is trying
to extract as much as possible for themselves. At the Climate Summit in
Copenhagen, China demonstrated, with a brutality that was downright refreshing,
that it's interested in its own welfare and not that of the world at large. You
can't even hold that against the country. After all, it's been a long time since
it had a stable economy and society. "A great power is not necessarily a
superpower," China
expert Minxin Pei writes incisively.
Russia isn't acting in an empowering way; instead it's using its veto power. Yet Moscow invariably gets mad when its own imperial demands are called into question. [i.e.: Russia is happy to veto the demands of others, but gets upset when its own plans are rejected].
The E.U. giant doesn't miss
an opportunity to carefully tie its own hands. The new tableau of people filling
senior posts (which the E.U. had to agree on and name) was spun so long in the consensus
machine of Brussels that the candidates who came out were guaranteed to be colorless.
And then we have the rising stars of the regional league who are claiming more
influence and prestige. It's roughly up to Turkey or Brazil to guide their regions
- or in other words, their backyards.
THE EUROPEAN 'LIFE-LIE'
[Editor's Note: The "life-lie"
is a literary concept originating with Swedish dramatist Henrik
Ibsen. It refers to the creation of an unreal life - or lie - to cover up a
reality we find too unpleasant to address.]
At least the perceived start
of the 'post-American era' is forcing Europeans to bring their life-lie to an
end. America no longer fits the role of scapegoat for every failure and for
Europe's own inaction.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
The "axis of evil,"
as coined by George W. Bush and used by his warlord Dick Cheney, made it easy
to deny any acceptance of responsibility. Now it's Obama who politely demands
more engagement: of soldiers who don't guarantee peace but without whom it's
guaranteed that there'll be none. The laughable threat by German Foreign
Minister Guido Westerwelle to "boycott" the
conference for Afghanistan in London shows how they're squirming. With Bush they
would have flatly said "no," and in doing so, would have still felt good
morally.
No one claims
that as a global policeman, the U.S. acts altruistically. But U.S. interests
are often identical to those of the Western world - our world. And the U.S. has
at its command the military and financial resources of by far the greatest
economic power. We also need its willingness to spend. That holds true in
Afghanistan, which didn't become a stronghold of al-Qaeda just because it's a
danger to the United States. And we must be honest, it also holds true for the
security of the oil supply, even if, of course, we Europeans would never go to
war over black gold.
The Americans are not a nation
of fanatical imperialists. The pulse of the electorate there is too isolationist,
and Darfur is even further from Illinois than from [the German state of] Saarland.
And Germany already has enough problems of its own. Meanwhile, every other
person thinks the U.S. would be better off minding its own business rather than
engaging in foreign affairs.
Woe betide the world if President Obama continues to make this
the guiding principle of his policies.
*Ines Zöttl
is Foreign Affairs Team Leader for the Financial Times Deutschland.
